TerraPrime Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 It was the manner in which they amended the rule that is significant -- by a simple majority. That really pissed off Republicans, who may feel justified in using the same process in amending a different rule -- the filibuster. Whether they are correct in feeling justified is a different issue. My memory has been bad lately, so perhaps you can remind us of the few things that Democrats did that did not piss of the Republicans? But I think it is fair to say that this unilateral amendment of the rules makes a future GOP suspension of the filibuster more likely if it becomes their turn in power. Oh please. As if the GOP needs pioneers to carve out a path in the unexplored territory of using parliamentary rules to stymie political opposition. Truly, you give your own team too little credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 My memory has been bad lately, so perhaps you can remind us of the few things that Democrats did that did not piss of the Republicans? Oh please. As if the GOP needs pioneers to carve out a path in the unexplored territory of using parliamentary rules to stymie political opposition. Truly, you give your own team too little credit. I wasn't making a value judgment. Just an observation. If you think the mere making of that observation was partisan, take it up with Politico, who made the exact same observation I did: While the rules change may not seriously affect the substance of pending legislation, the process employed by Democrats could be replicated in the future to overhaul bedrock rules like the filibuster. For that reason, both parties have tried to avoid employing such tactics to change the rules over the last several congressional sessions, including in a fierce 2005 battle that nearly limited the use of the filibuster.Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65383.html#ixzz1a7SxCYqi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I don't think so. He did away with a rule that hadn't previously been used in seventy years. That's not exactly political courage. Get back to me when he ends filibusters for executive branch nominees. Pfft. He'll never get the votes for that. The filibuster is a huge source of individual power for Senators. It can get them outright bribes. They ain't gonna agree to get rid of it. Why the fucking fuck are they wasting their goddam time and money on this!?! :bang: :bang: :bang: Old people and the like. Somewhere out there, there is someone who is anti-pot who needed their palm greased to get something else done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Everyone has known for years that intervention makes things worse. We need to leave these people alone. They don't our soldiers walking their streets. They don't want our money. They don't want our civilian surge. They don't want us to put their country together again. They overwhelmingly want us to leave. This paternalistic "we need to fix their country" bullshit needs to stop. The problem is that the government of Afghanistan deliberately provided a safe haven to, and support for, an organization that killed 3000 Americans, and has tried to kill a lot more, long before our troops walked their streets. If the Taliban wants to come forward, publicly disavow any future cooperation with Al Qaeda or other anti-U.S. militants, etc., if we leave Afghanistan, then sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 See my response to coco, except for the hippie card part. What do you think we have to do in Afghanistan/Iraq/Yemen/Somalia/Libya/Pakistan/North Korea before our obligation is discharged there?Voting as a Senator is a vastly different beast than directing the Executive Branch. Yes, he has as much credibility about that as anyone can get, but I have severe doubt that the constraints of governing will allow Paul to do as his principles dictate on all the issues. On some, perhaps, but the President is not the Overlord, and s/he is as much restricted by the momentum of the on-going process of governance as anyone else. It was hard enough for Clinton to get gays accepted into the military, and he was the Commander in Chief for all armed forces. A President with no strong backing from the two parties in control of the Congress will be as effective as a peacenik at a gun range. All the troops in the countries above are there by Executive Order. An executive order can bring them back just like that. Matters of law obviously will have to go through a hostile congress, but it would be nice to see all that "unitary executive" bullshit bite the warmongers in the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted October 7, 2011 Author Share Posted October 7, 2011 How dumb. Why can't their be a third-party candidate who is truly viable? It's too late for 2012 but if someone started preparing for 2016 now I think they'd actually have a credible chance.Because no one who runs as a third party will actually take the long view and do the work to make their party viable. Step one: Elect party members to local offices, keep doing this until your third party is running for local offices in at least thirty states and 300 cities of a variety of sizes Step two: Elect party members to state offices. Keep doing this until you have at least three governerships and either one state legislature majority, or ten state legislatures where you're a minority, but with more seats than either the republican or democrat legislature Only after step two is complete can you begin to do step three Step three: Elect party members to federal offices. Get at least ten senators and 50 HoR members before proceeding to step four Step four: Run for president. fail. Step five: Run for President. succeed You're looking at it taking at least twenty-forty years to build a party base that can support a presidential run. Starting at the top, by running for president, is moronic and doomed to failure. Third party presidential runs with no party infrastructure are nothing more than an egonanism for folks like Perot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Old people and the like. Somewhere out there, there is someone who is anti-pot who needed their palm greased to get something else done. More like entrenched interests that are big donors that need pot to be illegal. Trial lawyers, police and prison guard unions, alcohol distributors. Legal weed hurts all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Why would they do that? To get us to leave. I mean, if they really have no intention of supporting AQ, providing safe haven, etc., then it's giving up nothing, yet gets us out of the country. And even if you got certain families and groups within the Taliban to repudiate AQ, there's no avenue for officially doing that now that Rabbani is dead. I can't see a peace process taking off without the main negotiator. So, I hope you enjoy being in Afghanistan until we have to pull out like we did in Vietnam, because that's what you're going to get. If you had a sufficient number of Taliban/Pashtun leaders do that, that might be sufficient even if it technically wasn't "official". But they won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 So you think it's morally acceptable to go to a foreign country and destroy their political and physical infrastructure for the sake of make-belief anti-terrorism motives that are actually about colonial geopolitical gains and then leave their country when it's in a shamble? Leaving as opposed to...what exactly?If you can figure out wtf the USA is accomplishing in Afghanistan and then explain it to me you win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Again, why would they repudiate AQ when their power base is greater than ever because of resistance to American occupation? They haven't had this much popular success since they were being funded by the Pakistanis. No, I'd say they had a lot more success when they were running things back in 2001. Right, which is why they will win and we will lose. That remains to be seen. In any case, this has veered kind of wildly off tangent, so I'm dropping out of this particular discussion to avoid making the problem worse. Feel free to get in a last word, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Reptitious Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 lockesnow, Because no one who runs as a third party will actually take the long view and do the work to make their party viable. Step one: Elect party members to local offices, keep doing this until your third party is running for local offices in at least thirty states and 300 cities of a variety of sizes Step two: Elect party members to state offices. Keep doing this until you have at least three governerships and either one state legislature majority, or ten state legislatures where you're a minority, but with more seats than either the republican or democrat legislature Only after step two is complete can you begin to do step three Step three: Elect party members to federal offices. Get at least ten senators and 50 HoR members before proceeding to step four Step four: Run for president. fail. Step five: Run for President. succeed You're looking at it taking at least twenty-forty years to build a party base that can support a presidential run. Starting at the top, by running for president, is moronic and doomed to failure. Third party presidential runs with no party infrastructure are nothing more than an egonanism for folks like Perot. Great post! I have always wondered why no third parties emerged in certain cities or states. You'd think that particularly in states that are either very liberal or very conservative it would make sense for a third party (say, a Liberal party in the New England states, or a Libertarian Party in Texas or Arizona) to emerge since they could probably expect a certain level of success (i.e. actually getting some people elected). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 lockesnow, Great post! I have always wondered why no third parties emerged in certain cities or states. You'd think that particularly in states that are either very liberal or very conservative it would make sense for a third party (say, a Liberal party in the New England states, or a Libertarian Party in Texas or Arizona) to emerge since they could probably expect a certain level of success (i.e. actually getting some people elected). In those states, the very conservative or very liberal element generally dominates either the GOP or Democratic party, and elects more conservative or liberal representatives than the party elects elsewhere. Perfect example of this is Ron Paul himself, who is a libertarian philosophically, but wins election as a Republican. I can't think of the advantage to him of running as an independent versus winning the GOP primary and running as a Republican. And if you're too conservative to win as a Republican, or too liberal to win as a Democrat, then you're going to be representing an electoral fringe anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 He's the only person running who actually would end the wars. Guaranteed, he would issue the order as soon as the oath was sworn. If that and ending the war on drug are so important to him, then why isn't Ron Paul running as an independent candidate? I think that one of the greatest delusions that the libertarian fans of Ron Paul refused to see is that no matter how much Ron Paul would pretend to decry the Republican establishment, he also enjoys sucking on those GOP teats even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 That's pretty much an oxymoron. Federal governments in Afghanistan are a joke. So, I hope you enjoy being in Afghanistan until we have to pull out like we did in Vietnam, because that's what you're going to get. You seem to forgot that the Taliban ran a pretty effective federal government when they were still running things from Kabul. As to the latter point, I don't see Afghan being united by a single faction similar to Vietnam but it most likely be splitted into fiefdoms among tribal lines, one or two of which will be supported by the US. It's probably the most desirable outcome for the US. Because no one who runs as a third party will actually take the long view and do the work to make their party viable. Step one: Elect party members to local offices, keep doing this until your third party is running for local offices in at least thirty states and 300 cities of a variety of sizes Step two: Elect party members to state offices. Keep doing this until you have at least three governerships and either one state legislature majority, or ten state legislatures where you're a minority, but with more seats than either the republican or democrat legislature Only after step two is complete can you begin to do step three Step three: Elect party members to federal offices. Get at least ten senators and 50 HoR members before proceeding to step four Step four: Run for president. fail. Step five: Run for President. succeed You're looking at it taking at least twenty-forty years to build a party base that can support a presidential run. Starting at the top, by running for president, is moronic and doomed to failure. Third party presidential runs with no party infrastructure are nothing more than an egonanism for folks like Perot. The one and only problem with this is that third-party candidates can't even win local elections. Sure they might win a council/mayor seat here and there, but no more than that because their positions are often from and fringes and going beyond the local base of fringe-support will not win elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Re: Tormund What do you think we have to do in Afghanistan/Iraq/Yemen/Somalia/Libya/Pakistan/North Korea before our obligation is discharged there? I don't know the precise threshold, either. But I do know that for Iraq, at least, we ought to stay until they have a stable government and enough infrastructure to support themselves. Afghanistan is a bit less defined for me, since our goal there was to cut off support for AQ. I can accept that for Afghanistan, it's time to go home. All the troops in the countries above are there by Executive Order. An executive order can bring them back just like that. Matters of law obviously will have to go through a hostile congress, but it would be nice to see all that "unitary executive" bullshit bite the warmongers in the ass. Which is why I used Clinton's difficulties with integrating gay soldiers as an example. An "executive order" sounds simple, but in reality, it is not. The President has his constraints and he/she does not always get to do exactly what s/he wants to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 f that and ending the war on drug are so important to him, then why isn't Ron Paul running as an independent candidate? I think that one of the greatest delusions that the libertarian fans of Ron Paul refused to see is that no matter how much Ron Paul would pretend to decry the Republican establishment, he also enjoys sucking on those GOP teats even more. Don't ask me, like I said, I'm not going to vote for him. But I do know that for Iraq, at least, we ought to stay until they have a stable government and enough infrastructure to support themselves. Afghanistan is a bit less defined for me, since our goal there was to cut off support for AQ. I can accept that for Afghanistan, it's time to go home. And if that takes 10 years? 30? How many billions or trillions should be spent? When do we acknowledge that we aren't actually helping them do that. How do we even know that's what the people over there want? We set up a stable government in Iran once, they didn't like it much. And you have to be the only person in the world saying we should stay in Iraq but get out of Afghanistan (and what about Pakistan, the Korean DMZ, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia?) WHOEVER WROTE THE SOFTWARE FOR THIS BOARD, I WILL FIND YOU/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Which is why I used Clinton's difficulties with integrating gay soldiers as an example. An "executive order" sounds simple, but in reality, it is not. The President has his constraints and he/she does not always get to do exactly what s/he wants to do. Well, that's a bit different. Clinton was concerned about the politics of it. And prior to "don't ask, don't tell", all you had was a military policy of excluding homosexuals. Though Clinton as President could have eliminated that policy, he might then have been faced by Congressional action codifying that policy. And even if not, sodomy was in the UCMJ which Congress did establish, which could have been used to prosecute gay soldiers even without additional congressional action. Bringing home troops from Iraq/Afghanistan doesn't require an executive order as such. It simply requires an order from the Commander in Chief redeploying those troops. I strongly suspect Tormund is right. If Paul was elected, the troops would all be home pretty quickly. He's kind of nutty (Paul, not Tormund), and might not have been too convinced by arguments that getting all our troops and their gear home will take months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I am too nutty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Don't ask me, like I said, I'm not going to vote for him. Lol, see if Ron Paul can't even convince tormund to vote for him, then what hope would there be for third-party candidates? This is why I tend to dismiss those who decry the "duopoly" because when it comes to it, they're not really interested in the electoral process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I'm probably not a great example as I'll never vote for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.